R.D. has given very detailed personal information that recounts his experiences as he and TWi parted ways.
Is that not enough for you? If you're not clear on the details, I'm sure you know how to correspond with him directly.
Since when did RD's opinion become facts? What you have are his words ,his view. I could give you many reasons why that does not qualify as facts. For instance Chris G**r has a story when he and the Way parted company is his view also facts because he says so? What about other former leaders, are their stories also facts? And if so why don't these factual accounts coincide? Who gets to pick which one is the real facts? Do you decide because RD agrees with your distaste for the way? Is that what makes something factual. I don't think so....
Amazing how you shamelessly substitute *opinion* in order to dismiss on the ground eye witness experience and personal testimony that doesn`t support your own personal preconcieved opinions that have no basis in personal experience or fact
Since when did RD's opinion become facts? What you have are his words ,his view. I could give you many reasons why that does not qualify as facts. For instance Chris G**r has a story when he and the Way parted company is his view also facts because he says so? What about other former leaders, are their stories also facts? And if so why don't these factual accounts coincide? Who gets to pick which one is the real facts? Do you decide because RD agrees with your distaste for the way? Is that what makes something factual. I don't think so....
So, was this the only part of JeffSjo's post that troubled you?
Amazing how you shamelessly substitute *opinion* in order to dismiss on the ground eye witness experience and personal testimony that doesn`t support your own personal preconcieved opinions that have no basis in personal experience or fact
:(
As I pointed out there are lots of differing on the ground eye witness experience and personal testimony. Is just because someone posted here and is of the same mind set as you , does that make them the keeper of facts? Doubtful
So, was this the only part of JeffSjo's post that troubled you?
Not the only part but I figured we could start here. Any answers?
R.D. has given very detailed personal information that recounts his experiences as he and TWi parted ways.
Is that not enough for you? If you're not clear on the details, I'm sure you know how to correspond with him directly.
I'll just point out this little glitch in your facts case. Speaking of RD since you were, it seems that even he and his former Capital City Saints buddies can't even seem to agree on the facts, who also were in some cases "on the ground eye witness experience and personal testimony" and once seemed to be of the same mind concerning facts. It appears that he can't seem to agree with them on the facts anymore. Not to mention the countless others who also have their differing set of facts that he never was on the same page with
So again the question begs
Since when did RD's opinion become facts? What you have are his words ,his view. I could give you many reasons why that does not qualify as facts. For instance Chris G**r has a story when he and the Way parted company is his view also facts because he says so? What about other former leaders, are their stories also facts? And if so why don't these factual accounts coincide? Who gets to pick which one is the real facts? Do you decide because RD agrees with your distaste for the way? Is that what makes something factual. I don't think so....
I figured we could start here. Any answers?[/color]
There were no witnesses to the claims CG made in POP, other than VP, who can't respond to them.
RD's account, on the other hand, was witnessed by many people, including, but not limited to, his own family.
Many years ago (late 1970's) a close friend confided in me that he had been confronted at his own front door by thugs from The Way who made it quite clear it was in his best interest to desist in speaking out against the organization.
I believed then, and still believe, he was telling me the truth. At the time, I thought there must be some really profound or spiritual reason for the incident. Now it is clear to me that they were nothing more than lackeys, enforcers sent to do the bidding for their boss. They were the REAL" foot soldiers", blindly following senseless orders to insure the success and sate the avarice of their Commander-In-Chief, VPW.
Since when did RD's opinion become facts? What you have are his words ,his view. I could give you many reasons why that does not qualify as facts. For instance Chris G**r has a story when he and the Way parted company is his view also facts because he says so? What about other former leaders, are their stories also facts? And if so why don't these factual accounts coincide? Who gets to pick which one is the real facts? Do you decide because RD agrees with your distaste for the way? Is that what makes something factual. I don't think so....
White Dove,
I am confused? Do you accept eye witness testimony and personal testimony as evidential or not?
If so, then what's the problem with laying blame where it belongs--Jesus usually turned it on the accusers when the victims were accused by the religous "men"-- the Whited Sepulchures of the day --the Pharisees. Seems people here make that similar distinction. Wouldn't God expect the same reasoned judgement from you?
If not--I wonder that you use God as a standard at all. CONSIDERING, we use eyewitness account and personal testimony as evidence for the RESURRECTION of Jesus. That is how we can believe it. Pretty solid evidence if you ask me?
Over 500 eyewitnesses---lots of personal testimony--it would all hold up in a court today. Seems you are willing to accept that as true? Something written 2000 or so years ago?
I am confused? Do you accept eye witness testimony and personal testimony as evidential or not?
No ,eye witness testimony and personal testimony are no different than other evidence and are subject to the same methods for determining truth as any other proof. In various scenarios everyday people record accounts of people, and then those accounts are screened for truth or not. Just because someone says so ,or posts it on the internet, does not qualify it as truth. Of course one is free to personally believe what they like ,but to represent words as truth that have not been subject to the common methods that we use to determine truth or error everyday in this country is deceptive and dishonest.
If so, then what's the problem with laying blame where it belongs--Jesus usually turned it on the accusers when the victims were accused by the religous "men"-- the Whited Sepulchures of the day --the Pharisees. Seems people here make that similar distinction. Wouldn't God expect the same reasoned judgement from you?
If not--I wonder that you use God as a standard at all. CONSIDERING, we use eyewitness account and personal testimony as evidence for the RESURRECTION of Jesus. That is how we can believe it. Pretty solid evidence if you ask me?
Over 500 eyewitnesses---lots of personal testimony--it would all hold up in a court today. Seems you are willing to accept that as true? Something written 2000 or so years ago?
Acceptance of the resurrection is a matter of faith those that do not believe in the Bible would not necessarily accept the accounts of the Bible. Fortunately we don't have to rely on scripture alone there are other proofs of the resurrection.
End your--lay the blame on the victim--doubt the eyewitnesses(PLURAL)accounts--cast a haze over their personal testimony rhetoric
Yeah well some people once said the earth was flat I think they got it wrong ,good thing we did not believe their personal testimony...... Just because it comes out of someone's mouth does not make it true.
-- or renounce the resurrection---to at least be consistent and present a credible argument, seems you need to do one or the other??
Actually I have been consistent ,just not with your example which is lacking to prove your point.
Smart move Geisha, Dooj is absolutely right. I had to grab myself as well. The temptation to react in outrage to comparisons of Ralph D, one of the very few men of character and integrity at the top, one time coordinator of the whole damned country, who did his level best to fix what was wrong, who tried to warn people when he found out that it was utterly and completely broken....unselfishly help so many many people .... to compare him with the pimping ex bus driver whom drugged teen aged women`s drinks for his filthy old man boss, who STILL to this day sponges off of deceived followers....would be ludicrous if it weren`t so completely offensive.
"Acceptance of the resurrection is a matter of faith those that do not believe in the Bible would not necessarily accept the accounts of the Bible. Fortunately we don't have to rely on scripture alone there are other proofs of the resurrection."
Smart move Geisha, Dooj is absolutely right. I had to grab myself as well. The temptation to react in outrage to comparisons of Ralph D, one of the very few men of character and integrity at the top, one time coordinator of the whole damned country, who did his level best to fix what was wrong, who tried to warn people when he found out that it was utterly and completely broken....unselfishly help so many many people .... to compare him with the pimping ex bus driver whom drugged teen aged women`s drinks for his filthy old man boss, who STILL to this day sponges off of deceived followers....would be ludicrous if it weren`t so completely offensive.
But hey, I think that controversy is what makes him feel like a big shot and makes his offending *opinions* seem like they are credible.
Speaking of who did his level best to fix what was wrong, who tried to warn people, why is it that the rest of that group he was a part of seem to have a different view? I mean after all they were saying the same thing at one point, shouldn't we believe that as well because they said it.
The context of the claim was because someone said it it must be true. there are plenty of others at the top as you refer to them to choose from. But then you know that don't you ...It's just that there are so few of the bunch that agree with your mindset and your lone voice who posts here . Funny how others also say things but somehow what they say does not count as truth only one persons view. Now John seems to have a different view as indicated by his letter here recently that's his personal testimony why is that not the truth as well? I mean if just because someone at the top says so then he should qualify as well? perhaps because it is not negative enough?
I am waiting to see you answer Waysider on this one??
But you said: Acceptance of the resurrection is a matter of faith those that do not believe in the Bible would not necessarily accept the accounts of the Bible. Fortunately we don't have to rely on scripture alone there are other proofs of the resurrection.
WHAT?? What do you base your faith on?? A feeling?? That gobbledy gook SIT you learned from VP. Well, there are plenty of non-christians that do that as well, so it is not solid evidence. You better base it on some reason and logic to really believe it. Those eyewitness testimony and personal accounts are the proof we use for the resurrection. That is the convincing evidence. What extra biblical accounts are you speaking of?
Do you know what kind of solid case I can build for the resurrection using that testimony alone? As a Christian you should be able to do the same thing. What--you tell people Jesus was raised from the dead and you know it because of "Faith"--yeah that will show em??
The issue of the resurrection takes the whole "Philosophy" of Christianity and places it in history. It validates it. The case for it is so strong. It builds on the foundation of accurate historical portrayal and culminates with EYEWITNESS accounts.
You base your whole world view on the fact that it is true!! You do it here--I have watched you.
The people that come forward here--they are credible--like the bible accounts about the resurrection--they are a diverse cross-section of people relating similar events.
Your whole argument against their testimony falls apart--the minute you mention God or a court for that matter as any kind of authority--they truly are believeable.
ADD: I do hope you in some way understand that you base your entire world view--a -christian outlook--on the eyewitness testimony of people dead 2000 years. You can't depose them--they are dead. If they all were held to your standard--no one would believe it.
By the way--He showed Himself to women first--their testimony was not valid in court.
I am waiting to see you answer Waysider on this one??
But you said: Acceptance of the resurrection is a matter of faith those that do not believe in the Bible would not necessarily accept the accounts of the Bible. Fortunately we don't have to rely on scripture alone there are other proofs of the resurrection.
WHAT?? What do you base your faith on?? A feeling?? That gobbledy gook SIT you learned from VP. Well, there are plenty of non-christians that do that as well, so it is not solid evidence. You better base it on some reason and logic to really believe it. Those eyewitness testimony and personal accounts are the proof we use for the resurrection. That is the convincing evidence. What extra biblical accounts are you speaking of?
Do you know what kind of solid case I can build for the resurrection using that testimony alone? As a Christian you should be able to do the same thing. What--you tell people Jesus was raised from the dead and you know it because of "Faith"--yeah that will show em??
The issue of the resurrection takes the whole "Philosophy" of Christianity and places it in history. It validates it. The case for it is so strong. It builds on the foundation of accurate historical portrayal and culminates with EYEWITNESS accounts.
You base your whole world view on the fact that it is true!! You do it here--I have watched you.
The people that come forward here--they are credible--like the bible accounts about the resurrection--they are a diverse cross-section of people relating similar events.
Your whole argument against their testimony falls apart--the minute you mention God or a court for that matter as any kind of authority--they truly are believeable.
I"d like to see the answers to the topic at hand first before we spin off again to another subject It apperas that when we have no answes we move to a different subject the resurection.
. The people that come forward here--they are credible--like the bible accounts about the resurrection--they are a diverse cross-section of people relating similar events.
So when say for instance Jo*n L*nn came forward with his personal testimony he was credible as well? Yes? So how do you then justify the difference in views if both are factual,credible,truthful. It would seem that oposing views can't both be right so what is the standard for picking who is credible? Is it because they vilify the way? Is that the standard for truth? I'd submit not.
We're having another fight???? Oh goodie, I need a distraction from my real life!!!!
What prompted this? At first I thought I was reading an old thread.
I was at a meeting where veepee shared about that. I didn't see him do it.
But I am an eye-and-ear witness that HE said he did.
**
We have to teach our children these things. We just happen to live in a culture that doesn't quite "get it." But let me tell you, if we teach our kids right, they will grow up to be much better spouses.
So when say for instance Jo*n L*nn came forward with his personal testimony he was credible as well? Yes? So how do you then justify the difference in views if both are factual,credible,truthful. It would seem that oposing views can't both be right so what is the standard for picking who is credible? Is it because they vilify the way? Is that the standard for truth? I'd submit not.
John admitted to infidelity in marriage. He also told what happened (in spades) at hdqtrs.
Whatcha gonna believe???? 1? The other? Neither? Both?
I"d like to see the answers to the topic at hand first before we spin off again to another subject It apperas that when we have no answes we move to a different subject the resurection.
So when say for instance Jo*n L*nn came forward with his personal testimony he was credible as well? Yes? So how do you then justify the difference in views if both are factual,credible,truthful. It would seem that oposing views can't both be right so what is the standard for picking who is credible? Is it because they vilify the way? Is that the standard for truth? I'd submit not.
First off, I have no idea what answers you are talking about. I thought the name of the thread was "Eyewitness accounts fact or opinion" I am making the point that you believe the most FANTASTIC claim in human history. What is shocking to me --is you say you have "Faith".
Most believe it because of the amount of evidence that actually makes it credible.
You base your whole outlook on life based on the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead.
Yet, you seem to hold no standard by which you believe this FANTASTIC claim.
Apparently, you take it "On Faith" that some guy--2000 years ago was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. You don't know anyone who saw this--you can't quiz them or gauge if they are telling the truth--yet you believe it.
Didn't you say "What you have are his words ,his view. I could give you many reasons why that does not qualify as facts" OR "As I pointed out there are lots of differing on the ground eye witness experience and personal testimony. Is just because someone posted here and is of the same mind set as you , does that make them the keeper of facts? Doubtful"
Which is it going to be?
Why DO you believe that FANTASTIC claim??
What the truth is--is that we believe it--because of the eyewitness and first hand accounts. That is what we have. A strong, no, VERY strong case can be made that it is true--from the record we have. But, we rely HEAVILY on testimony and eyewitnesses. That is usually sufficient to convince an ardent skeptic--when laid out in a reasoned and logical manner.
You don't seem to require even a case being made. You take it on "Faith".
Yet, when reasonable people come forward in DROVES telling similar stories--people from varied backgrounds, people of "Faith"--people with alot to lose by telling their story--eyewitnesses to these events--you SUDDENLY require new and exacting standards by which they can be deemed credible. Their claims do not include being raised from the dead.
One of the compelling things about the bible is that the people who are written about are usually not cast in the best light. Remember poor Peter--rebuked as Satan by Jesus?
These victims-- although innocent--may feel some shame at what happened to them.--yet, they are willing to tell their story anyway. It lends them real credibility.
At least be consistent in what you require as evidence--maybe it could be that discrediting the abused might make the abusers seem okay. Sorry, doesn't work like that.
As for JAL? I really do not see a logical comparison--but if you are more specific--I am sure I can reason it out for you.
So when say for instance Jo*n L*nn came forward with his personal testimony he was credible as well? Yes? So how do you then justify the difference in views if both are factual,credible,truthful. It would seem that oposing views can't both be right so what is the standard for picking who is credible? Is it because they vilify the way? Is that the standard for truth? I'd submit not.
I'm curious - can you put these two testimonies here side by side so that the "difference in views" are obvious?
Afterall, my memory of JL's personal testimony is that there was little (if any) overlap with RD's. I remember JL speaking about entirely different issues. I don't recall any contradictions between the two men.
If that is the case then, Yes, both views can be right and credible. (You know, kinda like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.)
Without such a comparison, I'd say the argument of one man being right over the other melts away completely.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
5
5
24
15
Popular Days
Sep 7
24
Sep 6
21
Sep 8
13
Sep 10
10
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 5 posts
Oakspear 5 posts
WhiteDove 24 posts
geisha779 15 posts
Popular Days
Sep 7 2008
24 posts
Sep 6 2008
21 posts
Sep 8 2008
13 posts
Sep 10 2008
10 posts
WhiteDove
Since when did RD's opinion become facts? What you have are his words ,his view. I could give you many reasons why that does not qualify as facts. For instance Chris G**r has a story when he and the Way parted company is his view also facts because he says so? What about other former leaders, are their stories also facts? And if so why don't these factual accounts coincide? Who gets to pick which one is the real facts? Do you decide because RD agrees with your distaste for the way? Is that what makes something factual. I don't think so....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Amazing how you shamelessly substitute *opinion* in order to dismiss on the ground eye witness experience and personal testimony that doesn`t support your own personal preconcieved opinions that have no basis in personal experience or fact
:(
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
So, was this the only part of JeffSjo's post that troubled you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
As I pointed out there are lots of differing on the ground eye witness experience and personal testimony. Is just because someone posted here and is of the same mind set as you , does that make them the keeper of facts? Doubtful
Not the only part but I figured we could start here. Any answers?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I'll just point out this little glitch in your facts case. Speaking of RD since you were, it seems that even he and his former Capital City Saints buddies can't even seem to agree on the facts, who also were in some cases "on the ground eye witness experience and personal testimony" and once seemed to be of the same mind concerning facts. It appears that he can't seem to agree with them on the facts anymore. Not to mention the countless others who also have their differing set of facts that he never was on the same page with
So again the question begs
Since when did RD's opinion become facts? What you have are his words ,his view. I could give you many reasons why that does not qualify as facts. For instance Chris G**r has a story when he and the Way parted company is his view also facts because he says so? What about other former leaders, are their stories also facts? And if so why don't these factual accounts coincide? Who gets to pick which one is the real facts? Do you decide because RD agrees with your distaste for the way? Is that what makes something factual. I don't think so....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
There were no witnesses to the claims CG made in POP, other than VP, who can't respond to them.
RD's account, on the other hand, was witnessed by many people, including, but not limited to, his own family.
Many years ago (late 1970's) a close friend confided in me that he had been confronted at his own front door by thugs from The Way who made it quite clear it was in his best interest to desist in speaking out against the organization.
I believed then, and still believe, he was telling me the truth. At the time, I thought there must be some really profound or spiritual reason for the incident. Now it is clear to me that they were nothing more than lackeys, enforcers sent to do the bidding for their boss. They were the REAL" foot soldiers", blindly following senseless orders to insure the success and sate the avarice of their Commander-In-Chief, VPW.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
White Dove,
I am confused? Do you accept eye witness testimony and personal testimony as evidential or not?
If so, then what's the problem with laying blame where it belongs--Jesus usually turned it on the accusers when the victims were accused by the religous "men"-- the Whited Sepulchures of the day --the Pharisees. Seems people here make that similar distinction. Wouldn't God expect the same reasoned judgement from you?
If not--I wonder that you use God as a standard at all. CONSIDERING, we use eyewitness account and personal testimony as evidence for the RESURRECTION of Jesus. That is how we can believe it. Pretty solid evidence if you ask me?
Over 500 eyewitnesses---lots of personal testimony--it would all hold up in a court today. Seems you are willing to accept that as true? Something written 2000 or so years ago?
Edited by modbakerRemoved Personal Attack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Removed - Off Topic and Personal
Edited by modbakerLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
You are right. And I don't want to take it off topic
--but sometimes the illogical twists just to deny the victims and protect the predators--IRKS!!
but I HATE to see a victim revictimized.
I am outta here--please don't let my post take it off topic! :)
Edited by modbakerEdited to remove personal attack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Yeah Geisha, it IRKS. But staying on the original topic of the thread is the most mature way to handle things, IMO.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
No one can make you replace God or anything else for that matter unless one chooses to. If one did so them take accountability for your own actions.
Edited by modbakerRemoved Personal Attack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Smart move Geisha, Dooj is absolutely right. I had to grab myself as well. The temptation to react in outrage to comparisons of Ralph D, one of the very few men of character and integrity at the top, one time coordinator of the whole damned country, who did his level best to fix what was wrong, who tried to warn people when he found out that it was utterly and completely broken....unselfishly help so many many people .... to compare him with the pimping ex bus driver whom drugged teen aged women`s drinks for his filthy old man boss, who STILL to this day sponges off of deceived followers....would be ludicrous if it weren`t so completely offensive.
Edited by modbakerRemoved Personal Attack
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
WD said:
"Acceptance of the resurrection is a matter of faith those that do not believe in the Bible would not necessarily accept the accounts of the Bible. Fortunately we don't have to rely on scripture alone there are other proofs of the resurrection."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Such as?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Speaking of who did his level best to fix what was wrong, who tried to warn people, why is it that the rest of that group he was a part of seem to have a different view? I mean after all they were saying the same thing at one point, shouldn't we believe that as well because they said it.
The context of the claim was because someone said it it must be true. there are plenty of others at the top as you refer to them to choose from. But then you know that don't you ...It's just that there are so few of the bunch that agree with your mindset and your lone voice who posts here . Funny how others also say things but somehow what they say does not count as truth only one persons view. Now John seems to have a different view as indicated by his letter here recently that's his personal testimony why is that not the truth as well? I mean if just because someone at the top says so then he should qualify as well? perhaps because it is not negative enough?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
White dove,
I am waiting to see you answer Waysider on this one??
But you said: Acceptance of the resurrection is a matter of faith those that do not believe in the Bible would not necessarily accept the accounts of the Bible. Fortunately we don't have to rely on scripture alone there are other proofs of the resurrection.
WHAT?? What do you base your faith on?? A feeling?? That gobbledy gook SIT you learned from VP. Well, there are plenty of non-christians that do that as well, so it is not solid evidence. You better base it on some reason and logic to really believe it. Those eyewitness testimony and personal accounts are the proof we use for the resurrection. That is the convincing evidence. What extra biblical accounts are you speaking of?
Do you know what kind of solid case I can build for the resurrection using that testimony alone? As a Christian you should be able to do the same thing. What--you tell people Jesus was raised from the dead and you know it because of "Faith"--yeah that will show em??
The issue of the resurrection takes the whole "Philosophy" of Christianity and places it in history. It validates it. The case for it is so strong. It builds on the foundation of accurate historical portrayal and culminates with EYEWITNESS accounts.
You base your whole world view on the fact that it is true!! You do it here--I have watched you.
The people that come forward here--they are credible--like the bible accounts about the resurrection--they are a diverse cross-section of people relating similar events.
Your whole argument against their testimony falls apart--the minute you mention God or a court for that matter as any kind of authority--they truly are believeable.
ADD: I do hope you in some way understand that you base your entire world view--a -christian outlook--on the eyewitness testimony of people dead 2000 years. You can't depose them--they are dead. If they all were held to your standard--no one would believe it.
By the way--He showed Himself to women first--their testimony was not valid in court.
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
I"d like to see the answers to the topic at hand first before we spin off again to another subject It apperas that when we have no answes we move to a different subject the resurection.
So when say for instance Jo*n L*nn came forward with his personal testimony he was credible as well? Yes? So how do you then justify the difference in views if both are factual,credible,truthful. It would seem that oposing views can't both be right so what is the standard for picking who is credible? Is it because they vilify the way? Is that the standard for truth? I'd submit not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
It's real simple Whitedove...as plain as the nose on your face...sorry you can't see it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Well perhaps you would care to enlighten uninformed ones then.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
We're having another fight???? Oh goodie, I need a distraction from my real life!!!!
What prompted this? At first I thought I was reading an old thread.
I was at a meeting where veepee shared about that. I didn't see him do it.
But I am an eye-and-ear witness that HE said he did.
**
We have to teach our children these things. We just happen to live in a culture that doesn't quite "get it." But let me tell you, if we teach our kids right, they will grow up to be much better spouses.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
John admitted to infidelity in marriage. He also told what happened (in spades) at hdqtrs.
Whatcha gonna believe???? 1? The other? Neither? Both?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
First off, I have no idea what answers you are talking about. I thought the name of the thread was "Eyewitness accounts fact or opinion" I am making the point that you believe the most FANTASTIC claim in human history. What is shocking to me --is you say you have "Faith".
Most believe it because of the amount of evidence that actually makes it credible.
You base your whole outlook on life based on the claim that Jesus was raised from the dead.
Yet, you seem to hold no standard by which you believe this FANTASTIC claim.
Apparently, you take it "On Faith" that some guy--2000 years ago was raised from the dead and ascended into heaven. You don't know anyone who saw this--you can't quiz them or gauge if they are telling the truth--yet you believe it.
Didn't you say "What you have are his words ,his view. I could give you many reasons why that does not qualify as facts" OR "As I pointed out there are lots of differing on the ground eye witness experience and personal testimony. Is just because someone posted here and is of the same mind set as you , does that make them the keeper of facts? Doubtful"
Which is it going to be?
Why DO you believe that FANTASTIC claim??
What the truth is--is that we believe it--because of the eyewitness and first hand accounts. That is what we have. A strong, no, VERY strong case can be made that it is true--from the record we have. But, we rely HEAVILY on testimony and eyewitnesses. That is usually sufficient to convince an ardent skeptic--when laid out in a reasoned and logical manner.
You don't seem to require even a case being made. You take it on "Faith".
Yet, when reasonable people come forward in DROVES telling similar stories--people from varied backgrounds, people of "Faith"--people with alot to lose by telling their story--eyewitnesses to these events--you SUDDENLY require new and exacting standards by which they can be deemed credible. Their claims do not include being raised from the dead.
One of the compelling things about the bible is that the people who are written about are usually not cast in the best light. Remember poor Peter--rebuked as Satan by Jesus?
These victims-- although innocent--may feel some shame at what happened to them.--yet, they are willing to tell their story anyway. It lends them real credibility.
At least be consistent in what you require as evidence--maybe it could be that discrediting the abused might make the abusers seem okay. Sorry, doesn't work like that.
As for JAL? I really do not see a logical comparison--but if you are more specific--I am sure I can reason it out for you.
You seem a bit confused
Edited by geisha779Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
I take it a group hug is not in order at this time??? Are we having a koom...bah...yah...moment yet? Maybe a come to Jesus meeting?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm curious - can you put these two testimonies here side by side so that the "difference in views" are obvious?
Afterall, my memory of JL's personal testimony is that there was little (if any) overlap with RD's. I remember JL speaking about entirely different issues. I don't recall any contradictions between the two men.
If that is the case then, Yes, both views can be right and credible. (You know, kinda like Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.)
Without such a comparison, I'd say the argument of one man being right over the other melts away completely.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.